SAEED-UR-REHMAN FARRUKH, J.- This is an application for cancellation of bail of respondent No. 1 allowed to him by this Court vide order dated 10.11.1997 passed in Cri. Misc. No. 5388/B/97.
There is some-what chequered history of the litigation in this matter.
2. Initially a case vide FIR No. 238/97 was registered at Police Station, Factory Area, Sheikhupura on 19.3.1997 under Sections 10/11 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979, at the instance of Muhammad Ashraf. According to the FIR the respondent alongwith the co-accused abducted Mst. Sughra Bibi sister of the complainant. It is alleged by the petitioner that thumb impressions of Mst. Sughra Bibi were obtained by the accused on some plain papers during the period she remained with them which were converted into a fake nikah nama and she was also subjected to zina-bil-jabar by the respondent.
Allegedly, Sughra Bibi, succeeded in making good her escape from the clutches of respondent No. 1 and filed a suit for jactitation of marriage on 15.4.1997 before learned Judge Family Court, Ferozewala which was contested by respondent No. 1. This suit was ultimately decreed. Presently an appeal is said to be pending.
3. On 1.9.1997, FIR No. 662/97 was registered at P.S. Factory Area under Sections 452/337-H (2) PPC read with sections 10 and 11 of Ordinance VII of 1979 with the allegation that Sughran Bibi was again abducted by respondent No. 1 and others and during the course of occurrence some injuries were caused to the complainant side.
Case pertaining to first FIR was investigated by the Police and- report for cancellation of the case was submitted before the learned Magistrate who acceded to the said report and ordered the cancellation of the FIR on 21.5.1997.
This order was challenged by Mst. Sughra Bibi through writ petition (No. 449/1998) which was accepted and the matter was directed, to be disposed of afresh by the learned Magistrate, in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made in the said judgment. The case is presently under investigation.
4. It is during the course of investigation of the case qua second FIR that respondent No. 1 moved an application for bail which was allowed through the impugned order passed on 10.11.1997. The petitioner seeks cancellation/recall of the said order.
5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 1 indulged in misrepresentation and suppression of material facts before this Court and managed to secure an order for his release on bill. It is pointed out that the factum of the pendency of the suit for jactitation of marriage was not disclosed. On the other had, it was mis-represented before this Court that it is with regard to the same occurrence that second F.I.R, had been got registered by.
The police in a mala fide manner. According to the learned counsel since there is now a decree of the Court holding the field to the effect that no valid nikah came into being between Mst. Sughra Bibi and respondent No. 1 and the order of the learned Magistrate for cancellation of the first F.I.R, has also been set aside by this Court, there exists no justification to permit respondent No. 1 to remain enlarged on bail.
6. On the other had, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has tried to argue that no material fact was suppressed from this Court and that, in any case, discretion of grant of bail having once been exercised in favour of the respondent, no extra-ordinary circumstances existed for recall of the said indulgence.
7. The in question proceeded on the premises of cancellation of the first FIR. This FIR now stands revived under the orders of this Court, referred to hereinbefore. Prima facie the second FIR pertains to a separate and distinct occurrence which allegedly took place as respondent, allegedly, acted desparately to gel hold of Mst. Sughra Bibi so as to put a cover upon the alleged occurrence of her earlier abduction and again forcibly abducted her.
8. Keeping in view the above facts, the order dated 10.11.1997 passed in Crl. Misc. 5388/B/97 cannot be permitted to hold the field, it is accordingly recalled and set aside. Muhammad Rafiq, respondent is directed to be taken into custody so as to be lodged in judicial lock-up. The Investigating Officer is directed lo conclude the investigation in this case (second FIR) within a period of one month, positively, and submit final report before the trial Court.
It is made clear that the observations made in this order shall, in no way, prejudice the right of Muhammad Rafiq, respondent to move for bail, after the finalization of the investigation in the present case.